CO2 Emissions Hit 67-Year Low In Trump's America, As Rest-Of-World Rises

We suspect you won't hear too much about this from the liberal mainstream media, or the environmental movement, or even Al Gore - but, according to the  latest energy report from The Energy Information Administration (EIA), under President Trump, per-capita carbon dioxide emissions are now the lowest they’ve been in nearly seven decades.

Even more interesting is the fact that US carbon emissions dropped while emissions from energy consumption for the rest of the world increased by 1.6%, after little or no growth for the three years from 2014 to 2016.

The U.S. emitted 15.6 metric tons of CO2 per person in 1950. After rising for decades, it’s declined in recent years to 15.8 metric tons per person in 2017, the lowest measured levels in 67 years.

And as The Daily Caller reports, in the last year, U.S. emissions fell more than 0.5% while European emissions rose 2.5% (and Chinese emissions rose 1.6% along with Hong Kong's 7.0% surge), according to BP world energy data - an ironic turn of events given Europe’s shaming of Trump for leaving the Paris climate accord.




Teja vato poco Tue, 07/10/2018 - 17:13 Permalink

Well, MSM reported about this, at least on the European side of the Atlantic. And the reason is simple - fracking. Not much to do with Pruitt. With the current natural gas prices, coal plants don't pay their costs any more, neither new ones nor old ones. Closed down on a regular base. So if Trump wants a Coal Renaissance, he would need to shut down fracking. 

Hm, why oh why did ZH not mention the reason?

Edit to answer Billy the Poet below:

Basically not my job to do the journalistic work for ZH, but to make it easier for you, here the original source from the US Energy Information Adminstration:

and a matching Reuters article:…

Also, although I did not claim gas replacing coal is the only reason for the CO2 emissions reduction, it seems to be the case as petroleum consumption has been rising. Would have been a wonder otherwise, as US car manufacturers have basically ceased to build small fuel efficient cars, replacing them with SUVs and pickups. Except Tesla of course, thats why they are so much hated around here.




In reply to by vato poco

Billy the Poet macholatte Tue, 07/10/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

Hm, why oh why did ZH not mention the reason?


Why didn't you post documentation supporting your contention that fracking and only fracking is the cause for the decline in carbon output?

Your argument sounds plausible enough but I couldn't help note the irony of your own omission as you criticized ZH for what you claim is their omission.

See, that's the real problem here -- carbon omissions.

In reply to by macholatte

Boing_Snap Billy the Poet Tue, 07/10/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

Great article on the effects of global warming here, one ten thousand of a percent of the biosphere is man made CO2, hardly a rounding error, and we're supposed to believe its changing things.

Great site where 31,000 scientists have signed a petition to stop the madness. Excellent paper on the subject provided.

In reply to by Billy the Poet

Zerogenous_Zone bobcatz Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:44 Permalink

it amazes me that people think they can become experts by listening to whatever 'choir' they like to hear...


when ALL nuggets of TRUTH are like gold nuggets...RARELY found easily and more often that not, found after extensive research, digging, failing and perseverance...



CO2 is a product of combustion, metabolism and other chemical reactions...and is NEEDED for life on earth (NOT a POLLUTANT!!)


10% (roughly) of ALL global pollution (hazardous and typical) originates from OCEAN FREIGHTING and NOT oil consumption...


ppm is parts per 1 ppm is 0.0001 percent and therefore 400 ppm is 0.04 percent...and ANYONE telling you that the earth's climate is so fragile that a mere 0.01 percent change (that is 400 to 500 ppm) in CO2 ppm levels will be catastrophic needs to be SMACKED!!!


i have 100's of these facts (by day i work as an environmental engineer; PE)...but you get the idea...



In reply to by bobcatz

silverer powow Tue, 07/10/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

Hey wowpow. Here's some power:


Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in formation layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources.


Anthropogenic CO2 sources are part of our everyday activities and include those from power generation, transportation, industrial sources, chemical production, petroleum production, and agricultural practices. Many of these source types burn fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), with CO2 emissions as a byproduct. Of these CO2 sources, electric power generation contributes the greatest amount of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere.

SO: Electricity production is the highest man made producer. TESLA TO THE RESCUE! Moar electric cars, moar electricity production!

In reply to by powow

Teja silverer Wed, 07/11/2018 - 03:00 Permalink

Ah brilliant Mr. Holmes.

But what if fuel burning engines are so much less efficient overall than a combination of gas power plants and electric cars? Then it would drive up total efficiency if fuel burning cars are replaced by electric cars.

Also, electricity production is moving from non-regenerative sources like coal and gas to regenerative ones, reducing the CO2 per kwh over time. And people are even thinking of using the batteries of electric cars as buffer for power networks.

But I know: Electric cars do not make enough noise, and noise is psychologically important to Real Men because it serves to show the peasants and women their lowly place in the world.

In reply to by silverer

Zerogenous_Zone Teja Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:47 Permalink

Utopian thought...


in a mere 10 years there will be MORE cars in China than the other developed countries combined...with NO pollution well as over 1000 coal fired power plants...


even if ALL the western nations STOPPED emitting CO2 TODAY, the global concentration would continue to rise JUST from China and India...




if everyone had a trillion dollars, money wouldn't be needed, right?!



In reply to by Teja

Teja Zerogenous_Zone Thu, 07/12/2018 - 04:26 Permalink

Well, you are partly right, but China seems to see the issue and has lots of pollution control measures running. Try to get a car license in Beijing for example. Not that easy or cheap. Or take a bus ride in Shenzhen, at the border to Hong Kong. 16'000 or so ELECTRIC buses running there. No diesel any more.

India has just opened a tender for  super large solar power plant, if I remember right about 50 nuclear power plants worth capacity wise.

But that will not solve it of course. Some long term observers and scientists are VERY pessimistic. Take Mayer Hillman for example:

He has been writing since the 70's regarding transport and climate and such. Now I understand he basically has given up.

I still have hope that the current wave of dumbnuts will fail destroying the planet. We will find out in the next 10 to 20 years.

In reply to by Zerogenous_Zone

SILVERGEDDON powow Tue, 07/10/2018 - 18:57 Permalink

Hey, Powwow, you dumb fuck. 

Chart shows emissions dropping steadily since Nineteen Fucking Forty Nine.

Now, unless Trump and Putin made a crib side pact when they were shitting into diapers, fucking Trump had nothing to do with emissions, the article, or the sand in your vagina. 

Now go outside and play in traffic, or chase parked cars like a good dog. 

Fucking retarded snowflake bloviating Cankles loving troll.

In reply to by powow

Teja . . . _ _ _ . . . Thu, 07/12/2018 - 04:29 Permalink

Can't believe anyone with half a brain cell would believe all that stuff you and the other posters have been writing. There is a natural level of CO2 which was relatively constant during the last 10'000 years, at 300 parts per million (ppm). Nobody wants to remove that from the air. Nobody. Now we have reached about 400 ppm, so 1/3 more.

"Oh, less than half a molecule per 1000" is the obvious dumbnut question. Well, the 300ppm helps keeping the average temperature on earth at 15°C, without it it would fall below freezing, to about minus 18°C on average. Think icebergs in the mediterranean. So it has quite an influence. And playing around with it is sheer stupidity.


In reply to by . . . _ _ _ . . .

inosent Boing_Snap Tue, 07/10/2018 - 18:04 Permalink

From your article:

If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.

Sounds about right.That would be one of the prime objectives of the (((luciferian cult))), would it not?

In reply to by Boing_Snap